The Incidence and Intensity of Postendodontic Pain and Flareup in Single and Multiple Visit Root Canal Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
, Prabhadevi C Maganur 1, Sanjeev B Khanagar 2,3, Hitesh Chohan 4, Luca Testarelli 5, Alessandro Mazzoni 5, Archana A Gupta 6, A. Thirumal Raj 7, Shilpa Bhandi 4, Deepak Mehta 8 and Shankargouda Patil 9,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a systematic review and meta Analysis on post-Treatment pain in single or multiple rct.
The manuscript is well prepared and suitable for publication. Only minor issues should be addressed:
- the visibility of Tables 1 and 2 is poor. Before publication, a better Format should be Chosen together with the Editorial office
- try to avoid active language in the discussion and consider using passive language (e.g. "we researched" -> "XY was topic of the present research"
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The authors presented a systematic review and meta Analysis on post-Treatment pain in single or multiple rct.
The manuscript is well prepared and suitable for publication. Only minor issues should be addressed:
- the visibility of Tables 1 and 2 is poor. Before publication, a better Format should be Chosen together with the Editorial office
- try to avoid active language in the discussion and consider using passive language (e.g. "we researched" -> "XY was topic of the present research"
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your time to review our manuscript.
We have made changes accordingly in the manuscript as per your observations.
- The format of both tables has been changed to allow for better visibility of data.
- The active sentences have been changed to the passive in the discussion (lines 226-227, lines 230-233, lines 298-300).
Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your interesting and well-written paper. Table 1 and Table 2 are both informative but really hard to read. Maybe you could modify tables, change the paper´s orientation to make tables easier to read.
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful to you for your observations and comments.
The tables 1 and 2 have been re-oriented as per your suggestions to improve the visibility of the text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your interesting and well-written paper. Table 1 and Table 2 are both informative but really hard to read. Maybe you could modify tables, change the paper´s orientation to make tables easier to read.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The authors presented a systematic review and meta Analysis on post-Treatment pain in single or multiple rct.
The manuscript is well prepared and suitable for publication. Only minor issues should be addressed:
- the visibility of Tables 1 and 2 is poor. Before publication, a better Format should be Chosen together with the Editorial office
- try to avoid active language in the discussion and consider using passive language (e.g. "we researched" -> "XY was topic of the present research"
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your time to review our manuscript.
We have made changes accordingly in the manuscript as per your observations.
- The format of both tables has been changed to allow for better visibility of data.
- The active sentences have been changed to the passive in the discussion (lines 226-227, lines 230-233, lines 298-300).
Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your interesting and well-written paper. Table 1 and Table 2 are both informative but really hard to read. Maybe you could modify tables, change the paper´s orientation to make tables easier to read.
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful to you for your observations and comments.
The tables 1 and 2 have been re-oriented as per your suggestions to improve the visibility of the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
